For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of thematch on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain andRomania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games anddetermined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game inwhich an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financialsanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.

I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.

For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of thematch on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain andRomania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games anddetermined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game inwhich an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financialsanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.

I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.

We don't know, though we've certainly seen it. Though one issue is even if a tier 1 side had they likely wouldn't face expulsion from the World Cup as they aren't obliged to qualify in the same fashion as tier 2 and 3 nations, were a tier 1 side to make the same mistake as Wales they might face the same sanction as Wales (a fine) and simply carry on to play in the next six nations and world cup.

For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of thematch on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain andRomania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games anddetermined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game inwhich an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financialsanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.

I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.

I imagine their unions' administrations are nowhere near as amateur hour.

Do world rugby not oversee these levels at all? You'd wonder how so many illegal players were able to see the field.

I'm actually doing this shit right now because my club has qualified for a national playoff-level tournament and I'm in charge of making sure everyone is eligible. Just talking my national union, it's beyond ridiculous how the regulations are written. They go on and say "players must play this many games, must be registered by this date, must have an ID, yadda yadda yadda" and then state later "one club that reaches this level will be subjected to a full eligibility review". So they setup their rules and then only ensure 1 out of 8 is in compliance.

Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.

For the detailed reasons set out above: (1) we have not set aside the result of thematch on 18 March 2018; and (2) we have found that Belgium, Spain andRomania fielded ineligible players in RWCQ and Rugby European games anddetermined that each Union should have deducted 5 points for each game inwhich an ineligible player or players played. We have imposed financialsanctions which are to be suspended for 5 years.

I wonder how many ineligible players have played for Tier 1 countries during the past years if any.

You'd have to go back almost 20 years to Sinkinson and Howarth for Wales and Dave Hilton for Scotland. Can't think of any that could be even be regarded as suspect since to be honest as there is simply too much to lose for a Tier 1 side.

Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

Then the unions can start picking homegrown players they developed as opposed to being the Romanians, Spaniards, or Belgians and declaring "our players are shit, let's go grab some Frenchmen and Tongans".

Last edited by Flyin Ryan on Tue May 15, 2018 6:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

Then the unions can start picking homegrown players they developed as opposed to being the Romanians, Spaniards, or Belgians and declaring "our players are shit, let's go grab some Frenchmen and Tongans".

Tighten the eligibility issue and the international game would not be the dog's breakfast it has become.

WR does not really care about developing the game in Tier 2/3 countries. If it did, the big union would do things differently.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising. Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.

Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.

How much in the way of resources would it really take to create and maintain a database that unions could check? It's probably a de minimis amount in the scheme of things.

Anyway, my comment wasn't just about eligibility but about the RWCQs in general. This whole controversy started with Rugby Europe incompetence in assigning refs with a potential conflict of interest to an important match.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising. Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.

Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.

Will they have (should they commit) the resources to undertake any more effective oversight than verifying by exception? Regulation 8 places the burden on individual Unions to verify and document eligibility and has some chunky penalties for failures. If standards have slipped I expect that they will sharpen up again pretty smartly and I’d rather have WR funds being used for development than comprehensive checking of individual eligibility.

I recall SA got stung for fielding an ineligible player in the Sevens a while back, usually that’s all it takes for Unions to improve practice.

How much in the way of resources would it really take to create and maintain a database that unions could check? It's probably a de minimis amount in the scheme of things.

Anyway, my comment wasn't just about eligibility but about the RWCQs in general. This whole controversy started with Rugby Europe incompetence in assigning refs with a potential conflict of interest to an important match.

We are probably approaching this from different perspective. Mine is on verification instead of the database, which would be the product of information provided by the Unions. Looking at the report it illustrates quite well the challenges as each Union had very different issues, including the mess of determining which team is a second XV. I expect Romania feels most aggrieved, given the efforts they went to.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising. Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.

Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.

I doubt WR will put Romania to a Tier Three status or schedule. Does Romania have a vote on the council? Rugby Canada has said it would be out $1-1.2 million per year if we do not make the Rugby World Cup.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising. Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.

Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.

I may be mixing my emotional disapproving reaction to poaching with elegbility.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref

The report wasn’t particularly positive.

Quote:

World Rugby pointed to the analysis of the referee’s performance carried out after the game (such an analysis is carried out with all international referees) which suggested that the referee’s performance had been poor, not up to usual standards, and had focussed on refereeing one team and ignoring the other. Spain pointed to the “performance review” carried out in relation to the referee and noted the comment of one official from Rugby Europe that the referee had betrayed the trust that Rugby Europe had shown in him by not replacing him at Spain’s request before the match.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising.

Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Frankly the ref wasn't that bad, he made some mistakes but so do most refs. The problem was Spain lost and weren't happy, which was the same situation when Romania lost a game to Spain they expected to win, both teams and sets of fans threw some toys out of the pram. And even that's not unique to Spain and Romania, most 6N and RC games there are complaints about the ref

The report wasn’t particularly positive.

Quote:

World Rugby pointed to the analysis of the referee’s performance carried out after the game (such an analysis is carried out with all international referees) which suggested that the referee’s performance had been poor, not up to usual standards, and had focussed on refereeing one team and ignoring the other. Spain pointed to the “performance review” carried out in relation to the referee and noted the comment of one official from Rugby Europe that the referee had betrayed the trust that Rugby Europe had shown in him by not replacing him at Spain’s request before the match.

It wasn't a great performance having watched it, but I've seen worse. And the report as reported on there was gotten to as part of a political process, originally it wasn't so bad.

Would the eligibility issue have been reviewed at all had the referee and his decisions not caused such controversy?

Excellent point, I'd say NO. Would Spain have won that game (which on paper was the expected result) nothing of this would have come afloat.

Clearly the Discipline Committee had to find some grounds for a balance decision and they relied on the inelegibility issue to issue an equalized decision, putting aside the "Romanian Union+Romanian Ref" claim that Spain was rising. Having seen so many poaching from Tier 1 sides I am at least astonished that this same issue have not happened often in the past.

Tier 1 sides tend to do their homework on player eligibility whether it be through ancestry or residency.

Those sides also get a lot more media attention to be fair. If England didn't do their homework on who is playing for them, I'm sure some journalist in Cardiff or Planet Rugby poster would and call them out on it. That doesn't really exist below the top levels.

Focusing on the long-term, what does this do to the 3 countries? I have to think it's most devastating to Romania who were probably counting on that check more than Spain or Belgium's budgets were.

I doubt WR will put Romania to a Tier Three status or schedule. Does Romania have a vote on the council? Rugby Canada has said it would be out $1-1.2 million per year if we do not make the Rugby World Cup.